Live data from Hacker News

US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

arstechnica.com

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#101
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever is dumb enough to not be alarmed that their caregiver gambles, also deserves to lose everything.

What you're missing is that most of the people on the list i just gave couldn't do anything about it even if they were aware of it. That's what the term dependent strongly implies.

(a) Tough shit for them, then.

(b) If they're that dependent, it is highly questionable that they even own anything in the first place.

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#102
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Mario Kart regulated as a gambling game in the UK? Sure, you can't convert its items into money, but you can convert them into wins in the game. And it has a "random" item drop system that's known to be rigged.

That's a disingenuous comparison at best. No exchange takes place. No fiat is given for a chance to open a box.

Is the game sold for free?

If I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get loot boxes that may have ultra-powerful items or may not, that's gambling. But if I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get items that aren't called loot boxes but may be ultra-powerful or may not, that's not gambling?

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#103
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I hate the Lego minifig series, and Panini sticker albums, and Pokemon cards. They should all have to include how many packets you'd expect to buy to complete a collection.

At least with the Lego minifig series, if you buy them in a store, you can feel the polybag to get some kind of an idea what might be contained.

Sure, but for a series of 16 figures you'd expect to buy about 55 packets to complete the collection.

I don't think parents (or children) are aware of that, or have any idea how to work it out. (I didn't, I just searched until I found this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon_collector%27s_problem

Re: US Senator demands review of loot box policies, citing potential harm

#104
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a disingenuous comparison at best. No exchange takes place. No fiat is given for a chance to open a box.

Is the game sold for free? If I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get loot boxes that may have ultra-powerful items or may not, that's gambling. But if I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get items that aren't called loot boxes but may be ultra-powerful or may not, that's not gambling?

> If I buy a video game and play it and occasionally get loot boxes

Why do you hide the repeated purchase?

The game is bought, once.

Loot-boxes require another purchase - an uninformed one. You purchase an item for a chance at something else, a chance that you don't actually know.

Mario Kart would be gambling, if you had to buy every crate as you hit it. As it is, with no additional purchase, it is simply a randomised strategic feature. Currency of some form needs to be exchanged to create gambling.

Post reply on HN